FINANCIAL POST COLUMN: Too Many Canadians Die On Waitlists

Play Video

After COVID-19 emerged in Canada, governments postponed hundreds of thousands of surgeries and medical appointments in order to focus on the pandemic. Like a slow drip from an IV bag, tragic stories started to emerge from coast to coast about non-COVID patients suffering — and even dying — after their appointments were postponed.

Jerry Dunham, an Alberta patient, died after his pacemaker operation was postponed, leaving behind two young children. Rosine Chouinard-Chauveau, an actress from Quebec, died after her unspecified surgery was postponed. In Nova Scotia, patient Robin McGee worried about going blind after the government postponed her cataract surgery.

My own organization had a role in bringing to light Judy Anderson’s tragic story. The retired Ontario nurse lost her daughter, Shannon, after she was forced to wait several weeks for a heart procedure. Incredibly, this was the second time Judy had lost a daughter due to excessive waits in the health-care system.

These stories are obviously tragic. But until recently they have been individual anecdotes. New research based on freedom of information requests includes actual government data on patients dying while waiting for surgery both during the pandemic and in the year leading up to it. The results show yet again that our health care system is in desperate need of reform.

SecondStreet.org asked health bodies across Canada for data on patients dying while waiting for surgery, procedures, diagnostic scans and appointments with specialists.

Although we weren’t able to gather data from Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and several well-populated health regions (e.g., Vancouver Coastal Health), we did identify over 2,300 deaths that occurred while patients were waiting for surgery during calendar year 2020.

The cases ranged from surgeries that could have saved a patient’s life (e.g., heart surgery) to cases that could have improved a patient’s quality of life (e.g., hip surgery). Data quality differs from hospital to hospital but a cursory review suggests a majority of the deaths involved appointments for quality-of-life procedures. In terms of pain and suffering, such cases probably are not as serious as life-threatening problems, but who among us would want to spend our final years stuck at home, living with chronic pain as we wait for hip surgery? Or spend our final years with clouded vision as we await cataract surgery?

In the data we did obtain, patients died after waiting from less than a month to more than eight years for the procedures they ended up not getting. Many died after waiting well beyond government targets for receiving treatment. For instance, in Nova Scotia 30 patients died while awaiting surgeries that may have saved their lives. In 22 of these cases, they had exceeded the recommended wait time when they died.

If we look at the entire period of April 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020 and also include cases where patients died while waiting for diagnostic scans and appointments with specialists, the number of deaths grows to more than 10,000 — which begins to approach the death totals from COVID-19 that caused us to shut down Canadian society for a year and a half.

Fortunately for our elected officials, several straightforward measures could help address this problem.

For starters, most governments could improve their tracking and disclosure of information on patient suffering. The wheel does not need to be reinvented. The Nova Scotia Health Authority does a good job in tracking patient data. Other provinces could copy its approach.

Second, governments could end the de facto ban on patients paying for health services outside the public system. This would give patients more choice and take pressure off the public system as some patients decided to pay for their procedures privately. Access to a wait list is not access to health care. Every other developed economy allows choice and, not surprisingly, provides better access than we do.

Third, governments could change the way they fund hospitals. Instead of cutting cheques annually and hoping for the best, they could fund hospitals based on their output. This would mean that every time a hospital performs, say, a hip operation, it would receive more funding. This method is not new. According to the Fraser Institute, more and more developed countries have embraced it over the past 30 years.

These options have been discussed in this country for years. We can only hope the pandemic will finally cause governments to shift from talk to action.

Colin Craig is president of the think tank SecondStreet.org.

This column was published by the Financial Post on July 22, 2021.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.